The decision in Fibula Air Travel SRL v Just Us Air SRL [2026] EWHC 1270 (Comm) offers guidance on how freezing orders should operate after a creditor has obtained judgment. In particular, it considers whether a company subject to an order should still be allowed to use its assets in the ordinary course of business.

 

The court kept that exception in place, but imposed tighter controls in response to evidence of a risk that assets could be moved beyond the judgment creditor’s reach.

 

Background

 

Just Us Air obtained a judgment requiring Fibula Air Travel to pay more than €5.7 million. Fibula did not make a subsequent payment into court and was granted permission to appeal part of the judgment.

 

Concerned that assets might be dissipated before it could enforce the judgment, Just Us obtained a worldwide freezing order. The initial order allowed Fibula to continue dealing with assets in the ordinary and proper course of business.

 

At a later hearing, Just Us asked the court to remove that exception. Fibula argued that doing so could prevent it from continuing to trade.

 

The court’s decision

 

The court found sufficient evidence of a risk of unjustified asset dissipation to continue the freezing order. It considered evidence concerning Fibula’s finances and transactions involving connected parties.

 

The judge declined to remove the ordinary course of business exception entirely. Fibula had permission to pursue an appeal, and a complete restriction on normal business activity could have serious consequences if that appeal succeeded.

 

Instead, the court narrowed the exception. It prohibited transfers of assets or value to specified connected parties and required Fibula to notify Just Us of payments exceeding €7,000 on the day they were made.

 

Why this decision matters

 

A freezing order can help preserve assets while a creditor takes steps to enforce a judgment. Its terms still need to reflect the particular risks and circumstances of the case.

 

Key points include:

 

For creditors: Evidence of specific transactions and connected party transfers can support stronger restrictions.
For businesses subject to an order: The court may permit ordinary trading expenditure, but can place conditions on how assets are used.
For both parties: A pending appeal, the risk of dissipation and the practical effect on the business can all influence the final terms.

 

The decision shows that the ordinary course of business exception is neither guaranteed nor automatically removed once judgment has been entered.

 

How we can help

 

Obtaining a judgment is often only one stage of recovering a debt. Our litigation team can advise on freezing orders, asset preservation and enforcement options where there is concern that assets may be moved or depleted.

 

We can also assist businesses responding to a freezing order, including applications to vary its terms so that necessary trading can continue.

 

Contact us

 

If you need advice about protecting assets after judgment or responding to a freezing order, contact our team to discuss your options.